Skip to main content

View Diary: The Ubiquitous Political Junkie Fallacy (200 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think that's the question. (5+ / 0-)

    And sounds to me like the answer is, 'If you can't deliver in the short term, you're screwed.'

    "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

    by GussieFN on Sun Sep 12, 2010 at 07:49:23 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  No, it means you frame it differently from the sta (8+ / 0-)
      start. We are fighting to get you the best policies we can, and then you actually fight (as clinton did with the tax hike issue- one of the few times he did- the best policy you can and let the chips fall where they may. You set up a system that allows you to engage in this fight by changing procedural rules.). Then every time you can for the next 18 months you mention conservatives are blocking you, and that the bills are conservative because conservatives are blocking you. You frame the policies as conservative. Etc. So, when it comes time for elections, you have made it clear- that the economy is something you are trying to fight to change, but for the GOP getting in your way and your proof is your actual leadership . Then you can go to the public asking them to send a message to the GOP that they need to stop obstructing you. As it is, none of that is set up. You have only the policies you claimed were going to work, which you knew were going to be half ass, to run on. That's how I view this at least.
      •  But that's just narrative, messaging, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Chrisfs, 3goldens

        and ideological positioning. That's all tactical.

        (I agree with everything you said, actually: I'm just trying to figure my way though this.)

        "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

        by GussieFN on Sun Sep 12, 2010 at 07:57:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •   its not just messaging or tactical (10+ / 0-)
          its policy in the sense that you are actually trying to govern a different way. This different governing will not be all loses.

          Messaging and tactical to me is where you  are strictly giving speeches, and not going to the mat for what you are saying.

           For example, on cutting the tax cut for the wealthy (something I agree with the president on) he refused recently to say he would veto a bill that did not include ending tax cut for the wealthy. That's more than just tactical- that's making a policy choice if he said that.  A way of governing with a policy battle he can win.

          He's saying something as far as policy. Some of these battles Ia m assuming he will o ut right win. Some he will lose. But he will achieve the policies over time that will allow him to continue to win.

          If , for example, he had pushed for a stimulus, and the GOP blocked it, he probably would have gotten a second chance at a stimulus that was bigger. If he had pushed for

          Again this is just my perception of some battles where the dems stood up and the public subsequently joined the Dems in agreement.

          The same with other issues like Wall Street reform or the PO. I don't think the stimulus would have been dead if he didn't get it the first time. I think the stimulus was dead when he asked for less, and then claimed it was enough when it clearly wasn't. I think if he had fought and lost the first round that would have set up a bigger battle in the public eye. But again that's  looking at things like the Clinton tax hike or the government shut down.

      •  Obama worked for the best policies they could (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        v2aggie2, sharonsz

        I think the Administration went for the best policies that they could get passed. In return, they were massively criticized by Jane Hamsher and supporters for not passing single payer, by others for not passing better econ policies, climate policies, etc etc.

        •  Lincoln, Nelson, Bayh and the Blue Dogs (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Lincoln and the Blue Dogs might be a better example than the Obama administration.

          Instead of pushing policies to help the economy and their constituents, they played clever games assuming their voters were political junkies, opposing Obama and the Democrats in their own attempt at triangulation. But their waffling isn't turning out to be the brilliant strategy they thought it would be.

          Actually, I'd think that would be good test of this theory. If the Blue Dogs do succeed in keeping their seats by clever positioning, then the political junkie is more than just a fallacy.

        •  No, they expressly did not (6+ / 0-)
          He wanted 80 votes out of the Senate. The GOP expressly stated even before 2009 that they intended to obstruct through its various surrogates. Historically we knew that's how the GOP reacted to the Dems in leadership from the 90s and in other areas such as appointment of judges. There was no reasonable way he could think 80 votes was going to produce the best policy he could get.  Look, I will put it the same way I have read it: the problem with the president is that in early 2008 he started his campaign on one thing, but by late 2008, the world as we knew it changed with the collapse of Lehman Brothers. He didn't come to terms with that reality or the GOP for what it is. Wanting 80 votes is representative of that issue. This issue is not like climate change or single payer. Those are two issues that have a longer arch for determining effectiveness than the overall state of the economy when one knows the election cycle is every 2 years.
    •  I think it's not quite that bad (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I think that the average voter won't just way the question of whether things are worse or better but also what chance they think the future holds for something better or worse. So, even if the economy remained stagnant, if there was at least the perception that a return to good times was in the offing than they will stick with the Dems. I thought we had a good chance on that count a few months back, but then the recovery stalled (due, in no small part, to the intransigence of Republicans on further stimulus). This really leaves things up in the air.

      •  you blame the Repubs for no further stimulus... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        fair enough, but Obama deserves blame for NOT EVEN TRYING...

        the Dems can't run on "Republicans blocked more stimulus" when they didn't even go for it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (149)
  • Community (68)
  • Elections (34)
  • Media (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • Environment (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Culture (29)
  • Law (29)
  • Civil Rights (28)
  • Barack Obama (25)
  • Science (25)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Climate Change (23)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Labor (23)
  • Economy (21)
  • Marriage Equality (19)
  • Josh Duggar (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site